Blimey all the anger over Danny ****ing Drinkwater being left out is making my head ache.

I'm pretty happy with the squad, really glad Rashford is in, in the end you really need a "x-factor" potential player that could be anything when you are looking for inspiration, which I'm pretty sure this English team will be with our defence and Rooney starting.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.Walt Whitman

I think it's a really bad decision tbh. Not because Drinkwater's amazing or anything, but you'd expect him to go with the 4-1-2-1-2 by default because it worked much better in the friendlies, and he's picked 5 options for the 1 behind the front two and only 3 for the middle 2. One of which is Wilshere, the crockiest of crocks.

Blimey all the anger over Danny ****ing Drinkwater being left out is making my head ache.

I'm pretty happy with the squad, really glad Rashford is in, in the end you really need a "x-factor" potential player that could be anything when you are looking for inspiration, which I'm pretty sure this English team will be with our defence and Rooney starting.

It doesn't make sense to me as having some more midfield enginey/defensive cover. I totally do not see the point in Barkley. In what situation does he come on as sub? When Roy thinks we need someone to try to take 5 players on and lose the ball? He's a fancy looking player who doesn't do enough. With 25 minutes to go you might go we need someone strong in the air, someone who can hold the ball up, someone with pace who can get at or in behind heir defence. I don't see Ross Barkley being the solution to anything like that.

For those reasons I think it is good to have an attacking-heavy squad because anyone in the squad is available as a sub. Being able to pose different problems is important.

World Scrabble Champion 2014. National Scrabble Champion 2009, 2015.
Author of Word AddictCountdown Series 57 Champion
King of the Arcade
ECB - you are a complete ****ing disgrace, #FTECB

It doesn't make sense to me as having some more midfield enginey/defensive cover. I totally do not see the point in Barkley. In what situation does he come on as sub? When Roy thinks we need someone to try to take 5 players on and lose the ball? He's a fancy looking player who doesn't do enough. With 25 minutes to go you might go we need someone strong in the air, someone who can hold the ball up, someone with pace who can get at or in behind heir defence. I don't see Ross Barkley being the solution to anything like that.

For those reasons I think it is good to have an attacking-heavy squad because anyone in the squad is available as a sub. Being able to pose different problems is important.

These are good points, but in the end the damage was done by just not picking more defensive cover in the original line-up, I get Uppercuts point that considering who we've got DD should have stayed for Wilshere or Barkley, but in the end I guess it comes down to who you like, and I don't like Drinkwater.

Ross and Jack have also done pretty well for England in the qualifications. Henderson's inclusion seems to be totally accepted and yet he's not exactly played that much recently.

I think it is a huge gamble having three players with injury doubts and I would concede that Sturridge is a matchwinner so the gamble is probably worth it but I have no idea why both Wheelchair and Henderson are picked over Drinkwater who has played as well as anyone this season and is fit.

I'm a bit of a Drinkwater sceptic too. It's easy to look good when your CM partner does the work of 3 players and your striker is so fast it's almost impossible to overhit a pass to him. But look at the alternatives. Rooney will play there instead at some point. 100% guaranteed.